Conservanswers?

Hello! I found this site recently and it has really opened my eyes. I already knew that the internet was corrupt and that Wikipedia would not listen to a conservative opinion, but I did not know that a group of people had gotten together to do something to fight it. I also realized how much of the Bible had been liberalized and dumbed down as it was translated by a small group of liberal, atheist scholars. (NIV). But I think that it would be nice to have something like wikianswers that has the same philosophy as Conservapedia, so that people could interact more within the conservative community and answer questions that may not have been considered, or to talk about problems that are downsized by the media, and that only a few people may know about. I also think that since Conservapedia is retranslating the Bible, people should be able to talk to the devout and especially righteous members of the Conservative Christian online community here just like how we talk with our pastors or fellow brothers in Christ about the Bible. And I think that an answers site would really help.

I doubt that a separate URL named "conservanswers" is needed. Wouldn't it better to have the answers and discussions at one URL, rather than dispersed among two?--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Question

I just found your site and think it is wonderful. This summer my son wants to take the Micro economics CLEP test. I wanted to find a good study guide that would teach him true ecomomics lessons, rather than liberal economics. Will this prepare him to take and pass the CLEP? Are the answers posted somewhere on you site for your Final exam given. Or is there a way for him to send the exam to you and then you return graded. Is there a cost to this course? Thank you, and have a great summer.

The free courses on Conservapedia are excellent preparation for the corresponding CLEP exams, and many students who have taken these courses (including the Microeconomics one) have then passed the CLEP exam. Correct answers are frequently posted but typically not the correct exam answers; instead, I grade the exam answers that are posted.--Andy Schlafly 11:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

New namespace for the CBP

I'd like to share some thoughts on how to present the CBP more effectively on Conservapedia.

1. At the moment, the only way to quote from the CBP is by cut-and-paste: you have to find the verse you are looking for - e.g., John 20:2 - at the appropriate page (John 15-21 (Translated)) and insert it manually in the place: She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" If the translation is improved further, each quotation has to be altered manually - if this isn't done, inconsistencies will mount up...

2. It's difficult to search for a specific phrase in the translation: if I look for Jesus and tomb, I get 62 results. There is no possibility to limit the search to the CBP, so most of the results are from other articles. And if John 20:2 is quoted somewhere via cut-and-paste, I get this as a result, too. That is not very satisfying.

To improve the situation, I'd like to have a namespace CBP to be created, where each verse of the Bible gets his own entry. Then the problems mentioned above disappear:

2. The namespace CBP can be searched together with the main namespace - or separately. The results are more meaningful, and instead of a quite imprecise result like John 15-21 (translated), you get the exact verses where the phrases occur, like CBP:John 20:2.

This concept leaves room for more improvements, some of which I tried to implement for John 20:2:

<<2She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" >>

Other Translations

KJV: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

This is done via the <noinclude> tag, which transcludes only the actual translated verse. In this way many other features can be added without tempering with quotations. The links on the pages allow for navigating through the project, the context section is an invitation to read further on - John 20:10-31 is missing at the moment...

At the moment, the only disadvantage of the representation is that it takes a lot of work to implement the CBP this way. And I'm afraid that User:Edbot won't be much of a help...

As the New Testaments incorporates ca. 8000 verses, at least for the Gospels such a task could be done manually.

BTW: tempus fugit a quarter of a year ago I made some comments on the translation of ἰδοὺ. Two months ago, you announced that you were preparing an answer to these. Any progress? AugustO

I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment."

Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest This is indeed possible - and should be the way to go: the new namespace would include only the verses, nothing else is changed for the CBP: no pages are moved, only new pages are created.

I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment." You seem to refer to this entry from July 10, 2011:

August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [1], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --Andy Schlafly 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed here, I will take a closer look at your statement:

August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for any reference, but for a meaningful reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your google count of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on April 18, 2011:

Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious (here is bad enough. Getting me to make it blatantly obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about participation, but about contribution! --AugustO 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Frankly, I expected your comment and review to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.

Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a meaningful reference, neither.

With one simple search... this should have been a warning: you have tried simple searches before, and you failed.

...I found that it is translated as "when"... Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as when by the NAS, the New American Standard Bible. Conservapedia states

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.

It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular. Yep, when can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

Summary: On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment". Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

New mystery

Wouldn't that question be more suited to a debate? After all, what is so mysterious about it, the way you've phrased it? Can things that have yet happen even be mysterious? TracyS 09:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

I know this has been contentious issue, and I've studied most of the background discussions on the talk page there. I believe I understand the point you made, It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future, and I fully agree it is junk science designed to serve a socio-political cause. The editor, User:BMcP remains in good standing (as best I can determine), and has asked to restore some of his efforts on tthe page. I was thinking of possibly this version. I have not fully reviewed the article, and don't feel competent to judge competing claims on technical data (if competing claims on technical data do indeed exist on that page).

The origninal editor may wish to return to CP. I understand fully, and could not agree more, constant repetition of claims, such as "millions and billions of years", may be considered more as a form of indoctrination masquarading as science, as it is both factually unverified, and unveriable. Do you have any objections to the reversion or the editors return? Rob Smith 23:36, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Just as an aside, I reverted the edits by FergusE (whom I suspect to be a parodist) because he removed the distances section. Even creationists agree on how far away things are. hence needing to find a solution for the starlight problem. Whether or not there are billions of years in our future is a different argument altogether. MaxFletcher 23:40, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Billions of solar years, I presume you refer to. Rob Smith 23:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

What I mean is that Andromeda is billions of miles away however creationists (of which I am not sure if I am one or not) don't agree that means that the universe is billions of years old. Do you know what i mean? MaxFletcher 23:52, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Not really. I gueessing the universe is probably older than the earth, it's only logical. But I (and that would include Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan) would have no way of telling, other than guess work. Rob Smith 23:57, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't much time thinking about such things anyway, way over my head! MaxFletcher 23:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

MaxFletcher, first I don't appreciate you accusing me of being a parodist. If you have a problem with me, we can deal with it on my talk page. As for the Andromeda galaxy, there is no convincing evidence that it is millions of light years away. Furthermore, the evidence that astronomers use are based on assumptions about the age of the Earth and on relativistic effects, both of which are very convincingly debunked here. Leaving the mainstream distance to Andromeda on Conservapedia is inconsistent both with observed reality and with other scientific articles on Conservapedia. --FergusE 01:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

The distance of the galaxies isn't disputed by anyone, not even creationists. MaxFletcher 01:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

According to one of the leading creationist website there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. You tell me how big you think the universe is and then explain how so many galaxies could exist within such a space without the gravitational pull tearing them, and us, apart. MaxFletcher 01:19, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

I suspect there are far more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. God's creation is truly infinite and breathtaking. As for the visible universe, it's about 12,000 light years in diameter. To answer your question about galaxies and gravity, I can think of a few possibilities: Perhaps there aren't as many galaxies and stars as mainstream science would have you believe, or perhaps gravity doesn't work exactly as mainstream science says it does, or perhaps God is preventing that happening to us somehow. --FergusE 01:42, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

In response to Rob's question that started this thread, I'm fine with restoring the version that he cites.

In response to the other comments above, there are flaws of logic and verifiability associated with claims of time and distance for galaxies in the universe. Assertions of time are based on untestable assumptions and should be avoided in a credible encyclopedic resource like this one. Assertion of distance are less problematic but still have weaknesses in logical rigor.--Andy Schlafly 09:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

User: RobS

Please delete

Please delete the page I have pointed out on recent changes!!! I have blocked the user that created it. MaxFletcher 20:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't remember if it is standard practice or not, but you may want to delete the corresponding talk page as well, so it isn't hanging in the ether. WesleySHello! 20:35, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

It would help if someone provided a link. Rob Smith 21:18, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

It has been deleted. And the link would likely never have made it through the filters from the likes of me. WesleySHello! 21:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Um, I believe the user has been blocked. And, just for the record, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else. But I wouldn't know about atheists the US. MaxFletcher 21:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Max, are you in the UK? Have you met Richard Dawkins? Conservative 00:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

No, I am not in the UK and no I haven't meet Richard Dawkins but I have read two of his books. Nonetheless most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. Most people in my part of the world are rather personal about their faith (or lack thereof) and don't feel the need to politicize nor pour scorn on the beliefs of others. MaxFletcher 00:47, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

I see you live in NZ now. Please see if you can find some statistics on NZ Christian charitable giving versus NZ atheists charitable giving. In the USA, even if church giving isn't counted, Christians give more per capita according to some data that I am acquainted with. See: Atheism and uncharitableness I do think that charitable giving is an important form of kindness and also it can a good aggregate indicator as well in terms of a population's kindness - especially in the developed world. Conservative

Interestingly, there was an international survey on this recently. NZ has about 1/3 of the population marking "No religion" on the most recent survey and New Zealand came out as the most charitable country in the world next to Australia.. But again, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else including members of my family, colleagues and close friends. MaxFletcher 00:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

I can think of no such study I'm afraid nor does it have any bearing on my comment. I am in fact one of the only Christians in my group of friends (outside of church) and everyone treats me, and each other, with kindness and respect. MaxFletcher 01:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

This discussion could be fruitful, if we're going to write an article which correlates personal characteristics with the ideology which people espouse. C and MF appear to disagree on this point, so perhaps they could collaborate on an article which provide evidence and/or counterexamples on the various aspects in question. --Ed PoorTalk 14:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

I put additional requests for the Bob Seger article, which I just started working on last night, as well. Thanks!--JamesWilson 23:28, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Never mind. Jpatt took care of the image requests. Thanks.--JamesWilson 15:15, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Hello Conservapedia!

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I'm a new user here, and I just wanted to thank you for making this resource. I look forward to continuing to contribute, and I hope my recent edits have improved the encyclopedia. Thanks! User:MorrisF

Ditto. This is a very good resource for students. I shudder to think what would happen if Wikipedia was the only reliable resources for my children. NickP 01:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

How old are your children? I don't think we're family-friendly enough to be a good resource for kids in elementary school. The lower range of our target audience would be prep school.

There are other good encyclopedias, such as the New World Encyclopedia of the Unification Church. (I might be a bit biased, since I was a paid consultant to that project for a number of months.) However, remember that in general an encyclopedia is for the well-educated and is not intended to replace books, magazines or web sites, especially for educating young children. An encyclopedia is reference material, not a textbook. --Ed PoorTalk 14:22, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Android App

Please give me your opinion on the CP mobile app. I feel it could be very useful for your homeschoolers and for general promotion of the site. May God Bless you.--FergusE 22:22, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to try it if I can find a way to download it. --Ed PoorTalk 14:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Captcha

I was attempting to fix some pages with 'cite errors' (no references section) but they already had external links and when I attempted to save them it brings up that annoying Captcha thing. Is there any way that this can be applied only to new links? CA†HERINE 03:16, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't think there is a way to do that since the CAPTCHA is triggered the moment links actually appear in an article that had not been there before. In this case, the "Cite Error" prevented the link from appearing in the article, so by the CAPTCHA's logic, you added them.

However, I suggested amending the CAPTCHA's Whitelist on the Community Portal, which would allow users to add links to trusted sites without going through the CAPTCHA. --Sid 3050 12:58, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Pardon me for being so dumb, but I've been meaning to ask you to explain this in more detail. I'm really a dimwit on this. Rob Smith 23:23, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

"Wanted pages" appears broken

Sorry, I wasn't sure where to raise this, but I was trying to load Special:WantedPages as it's always a good source for new articles, but it keeps coming up with a blank page, or it times out. Thought I would mention it, just in case there is a problem and it's not just my PC. Thanks! TracyS 11:29, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I can't get it either, so it's not just you.--JamesWilson 11:51, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Atheist hospitals

Hello, Mr. Schlafly

I listened to your debate concerning the use of a cross in the 9/11 memorial. While I generally agree with you in this case (I am an atheist, and I don't care one way or another if there's a cross, and if it was indeed salvaged from the ruins then by all means include it), I have to take issue with your assertion concerning "atheist hospitals." I often hear people say similar things such as "there are no atheist charities" and I must say that that doesn't really apply. Atheism, in its rawest definition, means the lack of religion. It is not a religion, though there are organizations of atheists such as the one led by the man you debated with (personally, I find the idea of "organized atheism" to be silly). Anyways, there are atheist hospitals and charities: by default, any charity that does not take a religious stance or objective would be "atheistic." The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International would be good examples of charitable organizations that are not concerned with religion.

As an example, I, an atheist, am not defined by religion. I simply see no reason to believe in any supernatural or divine actors. Thus I do not do things in the name of what I don't believe. I still assist those in need, I still care about others, and if I were to build a hospital I would not call it an "atheist hospital." It would simply be a hospital, as there are many others out there.--CamilleT 22:45, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Your post is confusing. Let's start with your redefinition of atheism, which combines (1) disbelief in God with (2) having no opinion about God's existence, i.e., agnosticism. Do you mean that you are a non-believer or that you are an atheist (disbeliever)?

Note: "non-believer" is either atheist (there is no God) or agnostic (there might be a God)

First you say you are an "atheist" but then you redefine the term so that we don't know what you mean. Please be more clear and straightforward, or confine such meanderings to our Conservapedia:Debate Topics, where ideology and rhetoric are allowed free rein.

I don't know what you mean about organized atheism being silly. Do you think mass murder is merely silly? The worst cases of genocide in the world's history were perpetrated by atheistic Communists.

"Not a religion" is misleading, because denying that any religion which accepts a Creator is in itself a religious viewpoint. Harboring and promoting such a POV is considered protected religious expression in the US (not merely free speech).

If you are saying that you are merely an agnostic non-believer, rather than an atheist disbeliever, some of what you say might make more sense. Personally I think that people of good conscience who, while having no religious faith, are not opponents of faith or denier of God's existence, can actually contribute to building the Kingdom of Heaven.

I can understand why you might want to improve the reputation (or connotation) of the word "atheist" but please bear in mind that at Conservapedia we use it exclusively in the sense of disbeliever ("God does not exist" rather than non-believer (God may or may not exist). Editorial discussions will be improved by understanding our policy on the usage of the term. --Ed PoorTalk 14:44, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Let me try putting it like this: you have a television, and I do not. You spend some time watching the television, but since I lack a television I do not. I am not part of any "reject TV" groups, nor do I advocate the abandonment of television. Am I to be confined to the role of "non television owner" in all that I do? When I go for a walk, am I going for a walk as someone who does not watch TV? Are my hands the hands of one who does not watch TV? Of course not. Sometimes I feel that the religious are not capable of understanding that I do not have a religion. Thus, they would find comfort in thinking such things as I might worship Darwin as a prophet and natural selection as a commandment. But I don't. I just don't believe in any god or supernatural entities. My disbelief in, say, the divinity of Christ is not replaced by any other positions. So, to try and slander me by placing me in a non-existent group whose deeds are proclaimed to be atrocious and lacking in charity does somewhat peeve me. --CamilleT 00:12, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Based on this, I would say that you are (in our terms) not an "atheist" but a "nonbeliever". The group of nonbelievers clearly exists, since you are a member of it, and (as I began to say above) likely a good contributor to society as well. (I hope it is not slanderous to call you a "good person", but I'm happy to withdraw that dirty crack if it annoys you! ;-) --Ed PoorTalk 17:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

This user has been spamming the main talk with the comments (liberal athiest). His contribs dont look good either. 1 week block would be nice?Kinetics 00:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Says an editor who signed up today an hour ago.--SharonW 01:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Leadership

From Leadership: Leadership is the skill of guiding the efforts of others in the performance of some tasks in order to achieve a goal.

A leader may have higher skills than his subordinates , although it is not essential. He directs activities through discipline and encouragement and displays the values expected. Where practicable he will explain why some action is needed rather than simply use his authority to demand compliance.

From World History Lecture Four: Under the theory that leaders, not ideas, define history, the Roman empire can be described as thriving when it had strong leaders (emperors), and failing when it did not. Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) was a strong leader, and he is credited with establishing the Roman empire in the place of the Republic, which did not have a strong leader. During Pax Romana, there was a series of strong emperors. But upon the end of the Pax Romana in A.D. 180, the empire was handled by weak, incompetent or crazy emperors, many of whom served only a brief period before being assassinated. The end came with a nine-year-old emperor being removed from power by a foreign invader. That could hardly be a surprise to anyone.

RonLar, I'm an admirer of your work (at right). Welcome to CP and I hope this is the beginning of a good collaboration. Rob Smith 16:54, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks - and thank you for uploading the pic, too. It shows the number of editors per month here at Conservapedia, based on the edits which are still undeleted on July 1, 2011.

the lowest numbers of editors can be seen in late 2010 when some ill-advised experiments with the account creation procedure took place and the blockhammer was wielded even more often than usual.

generally, many people edited here at Conservapedia when Conservapedia aroused the interest of other media: the creation of Conservapedia was widely covered, the whole Lenski-thing got attention, then there was Andy Schlafly's visit at the Colbert report, and the Bible project.

therefore it is quite interesting the the current surge isn't coinciding with unusual media covering...

it's unknown how many of these editors

I would assume that the number of unique editors in a month and the number of unique visitors correlates. Therefore it is quite a surprise that June 2011 broke the record of unique visitors - what about the first months of 2007?

I'm not certain; I'm fairly disillusioned by the behavior of several sysops who constantly eradicate and exterminate any efforts, whatsoever, to even begin discussion of the sites problems. Rob Smith 12:27, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Your efforts were valiant, but they are doomed as long as you don't speak about the elephant in the room - or better: the lack of an elephant where there should be one! The excesses of the last days should have been avoided! RonLar 12:53, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

We've had some private discussions, and I think there may be a way out of this mess. Best to avoid problem users, focus on coherent proposals and I'll do what I can to mitigate bullying, abuse and harassment of editors. Rob Smith 15:22, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, if you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: Conservapedia:Atheism Project I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. Conservative 09:25, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, please create a graph/diagram on the number of prominent obese atheists since 1962 which is when prayer was taken out of American schools as I am sure Mr. Schlafly would be interested in such a graph. :) Conservative 10:19, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

If you can provide me with tangible data I'll be happy to oblige. From what I've seen until it seems to be impossible to differ an atheist from a Christian just by weighing their bodies... RonLar 10:32, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

13% of adult Americans were obese in America in 1962 (23,312,013); 33.8% of adult Americans were obese in 2010 (104,355,992), which is about right considering approximately 70% of Americans consider themselves Christians (approximately 125,526,223). --SharonW 14:34, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Roughly half of all Americans are women. And 50% of al Americans live within 50 miles of their birthplace. Sounds about right: women don't travel, men won't stay at home. RonLar 14:44, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Except, of course, for those outliers like my hubby and me. He livess 10 miles away from the house he was born in. And my sons are still living in the house they were born in. Me, on the other hand, I'm 1800 miles away from my hometown.--SharonW 14:53, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservative: Here's a suggestion of two topics to collaborate on Conservapedia:Blocking policy and Conservapedia:Sysop accountability. Now, if we can only keep User:Karajou from blocking and exterminating users volunteering their time and offering the benefit of their experience as wiki editors, we could possibly save ourselves a few weeks or years. Rob Smith 12:33, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

***Featured article - please help***

The Featured Article Committee chose Elvis Presley for this week's article, but we need someone who can edit the main page to change it for us. Thanks a bunch! --SharonW 10:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

To add: The only sysop on our committee is on vacation. Thanks!--JamesWilson 10:55, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

What was the problem with the Presley family photo? Was it copyright? It's OK, I was just wondering. Thanks!--JamesWilson 18:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Its source was a broken link.--Andy Schlafly 19:20, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

OK. Maybe I will find a replacement that is fair use and request it later. Thanks!--JamesWilson 22:59, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Capthca thing

Hi Andy, hope you are well. I am getting trouble from the captcha box whenever I try to add a link. Is there any way to turn it off? It was especially annoying yesterday when I blocked a vandal and had to revert a whole lot of pages. It took me ages because each page had links. Thanks and let me know. MaxFletcher 21:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

I just gave your account SkipCaptcha. Sorry for not granting your account that privilege earlier.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Just saw that, thanks! It makes it a lot easier to revert vandalism. Enjoy the rest of your day/evening (whatever it is over there). MaxFletcher 22:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi, I would like to apply for upload rights in order to edit economics articles

Mr. Schlafly, I have an MS in Finance and Statistics, currently work in industry on thew buy side, and would like to upload screenshots from Bloomberg to illustrate essentially how bad the economy is under Obama. I have made several important contributions already which belong to the Federal Debt Limit article (these contributions have already been slandered by liberals, but they still are part of our article.) If you would like me to give you more details about my background, let me know! HP 23:25, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Upon further thought, Andy, I don't think I need upload rights quite yet. I was unaware there was a page for users to ask for requests. i don't think my edits will be that frequent right now. Thanks! HP 16:20, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Other request

I would like to request image uploading privileges as well. It would make improving articles easier so I wouldn't have to wait for my requests to be processed. I believe I have already made some substantial contributions to articles I was working on. Thank you for processing my request.--JamesWilson 12:31, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Response to requests

Thanks for the requests. Additional privileges are based on merit and requests for those privileges are taken under advisement. It requires surveying other contributors too. We'll be doing a general review and hopefully you can continue to contribute in the meantime.--Andy Schlafly 10:32, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Sounds good. I will continue to contribute as I have then, in between family vacations and yardwork. Thanks much again!--JamesWilson 11:16, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Have you processed our requests above yet? If not, that's OK. I understand that you are bust. Thanks!--JamesWilson 13:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Christians in name only?

Hi Andy,

I came upon this rather shocking piece today, and wondered whether there's already an article for this phenomenon? I couldn't find one by searching, but perhaps it has a non-obvious name. If not, I'll begin one. Thanks, Jcw 08:43, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

I considered that, but this seems even more bizarrely irrational - cafeteria Christianity, as I understand it, involves believing in the basics of Christianity, but picking and choosing specific beliefs, often moral or social exhortations. These are people who call themselves Christians, go to church services, have priests in clerical garb etc., but overtly don't believe even in God or the historicity of Jesus, let alone the Trinity or the infallibility of Scripture. Jcw 09:57, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Bible Against Simulated Violence Project

I'm on a hunt for some Bible verses to show that violence in arcade games is wrong. Do you know of a passage that can be interpreted as against simulated violence? I can think of about two off of the top of my head, but I want to hear what you think. --WilliamMoran 00:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Horace

I think that Horace should be unblocked. I have posted this request to RobS's page but you were the blocking sysop. Could you please review the block? --S0CK0FH0RACE 22:33, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Request for SkipCapcha rights

All administrators have that right already. --Sid 3050 07:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. I saw that one of the Admins (DouglasA) had SkipCapcha listed HERE and I thought there may be some task or tasks at CP that requires SkipCapcha for Admins. I was tired when I posted this and should have realized there was no task or tasks (or at least very few tasks) for Admins that require SkipCapcha when I made the post. Conservative 13:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Deceptive statement by John Calvert

The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.

The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.

In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First Amendment, while in the second case it was found that atheism has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment.

Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source!

To make it as clear as possible: The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school, though this is implied by John Calvert.

Horace again

I am not sure if you noticed the above request but I asked if you could review Horace's block as the blocking sysop. I think if you look at the edit history you will agree that the length of the block was excessive. --Spheniscidae 17:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

The general policy here is for Sysops to respect each others' blocks. I rarely change someone else's block. Appeals should be made to the person who did the block.--Andy Schlafly 19:57, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Andy, just so you know there is no way to appeal a block with many, if not all, of the sysops as talk pages are locked and the email system disabled. MaxFletcher 22:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

True, but in this case you (Andy) were the blocking sysop. --Spheniscidae 23:17, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Oops ... but I checked the block log and I wasn't the last person to block him. In reply to Max, you make a good point and do you have a suggestion for an appeal process that doesn't take up too much time?--Andy Schlafly 23:48, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Is there any way in the software to block a user but allow him to post to a single page, like an "appeals page"? Any further abuse could easily be reverted and users posting right taken away. MaxFletcher 23:52, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

The last block was as follows: 22:07, 3 October 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Horace (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk). There was a subsequent "reblock" but that was by TK and was merely to remove email. Are you suggesting that TK needs to be consulted? --Spheniscidae 23:54, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Apparently, Horace refuses to change his little tune, even after a few years of being blocked for it. What we have is a record of harassment, socks, more harassment, fights, and so on. Karajou 00:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Apologies if I'm talking out of turn, but can something be done about this clown's endless supply of socks? Could a range block stop him? He seems only to have started this intense sockpuppetry recently, so perhaps one of the recently-lifted range bans was keeping him out? Jcw 09:19, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Range blocks strangled the project. What is needed, are sysops who not only know how to apply a block, but under what circumstances when to apply a block. Everything these blocking sysops have tried has categorically failed to block User:Horace, that much is abundantly clear. This particular case (one of several dozen) only highlights the need for serious reform and sysop accountability. The idea that sysops can rid Conservapedia of User:Horace by blocking him is like thinking a raise in the debt ceiling will bring about deficit reduction. How much more time should we waste with this idea that the banhammer, or range blocks, or lack of community standards and sysop accountability, is the answer to all our problems? Rob Smith 12:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I know there are significantly less atheist women, but I would suggest that if Horace does not have a girlfriend/wife, he might consider trying to obtain one and be less obsessed with Conservapedia. He might discover that women are far more interesting than rants against Conservapedia content. :) Conservative 12:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

The reason why Horace has started his intense sockpuppetry is that he has been banned from another wiki plus I refuse to read his emails. So he is extremely frustrated plus his infantile craving for attention is not being satisfied. Conservative 21:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

I must say I'm confused to see a sysop apparently helping this troll's socks... Jcw 13:02, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

A correction. Horace has been de-blocked at another wiki. I think it is a long shot that he will ever be allowed back here. I think AmesG with his apparently declining leftist/progressive blog readership has a better chance,[2][3] but that will probably never happen too. Conservative 15:28, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Blocking review

this can be a big problem, seeing the rampant archiving of active discussions, revision, deletion, and oversighting by admins trying to cover the tracks of their own policy violations. Here's a long list of abuses documented here. Needless to say, the user is in fear for his life against reprisal simply for speaking up, which is all too common. Rob Smith 16:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to point out- without looking at the merits of Horace's case, of which I have made to attempt to discern, nor do I wish to do so- that with the Email this user feature now disabled appealing a block has become an impossible undertaking short of petitioning an administrator on another site or creating various sock-puppet accounts.--CamilleT 17:30, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

The things about this individual are 1) he already has Andy's email, but he's got to bully his way back here, and 2), if he's so desperate to edit in a wiki, there are several hundred online for him to choose from...any wiki except this one. Perhaps there's a wiki on cats that he could happily edit. Karajou 17:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

You're still missing the point. Let's suppose a user, any user, is mistakenly blocked by a sysop as a vandal or sockpuppet. And let's suppose the sysop then reverts the blocked users edits, and let's suppose the sysop then archives active discussions the editor was in, and let's suppose the sysop then deletes talk page comments, and let's further suppose the sysop improperly oversights discussions the editor was in. What recourse would a good faith editor who has been unfairly blocked, or an advocate, have? These sort of sysop actions are entirely too prevelent on this website. Rob Smith 21:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I was right; there is one[4], and at 248 pages it sure needs a lot of help! Karajou 17:41, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Could the reason why Horace and friends are so eager to edit this particular wiki is due to the atheism and evolution articles? If I am not mistaken, the Conservapedia evolution article was a big cause, if not the cause, for a whole new wiki to have been launched (which is a very obsessive wiki filled with obscenity). Conservative 19:16, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

What I meant is that in the future, blocked users won't have access to admins' email addresses. Certainly this Horace fellow seems to be a jerk.--CamilleT 20:13, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Main Page HTML

Can you please add </center> after </big>? User:Conservative's talk page is protected and Special:EmailUser is disabled, so I can't teach him how to repair his mistake. Conservative accidentally placed </center>before (instead of after) </big>. --Michaeldsuarez 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Not sure if its MPR worthy but

Sure, if running pyramid schemes is considered honest work. That's what his company, ViSalus, does.--CamilleT 22:16, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Election propaganda?

Hi! I was wondering if you thought it would be okay for me to create an article on propaganda in elections. I ask because I recently received some flyers in the mail from a political candidate that twisted the facts to portray the truth in a false light (for example, it referred to the tea party as anti-middle class even though it opposes taxes, and tried to show how the state democrats had improved the economy even though they actually did nothing productive while in control). I only worry that it could potentially overlap too much with another article that could exist that I haven't found.

Sorry if I should be asking this somewhere else. Thanks!--MorrisF 22:40, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I think that would be a fascinating new entry!--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Great! I'll do some more research into the topic, and then get to writing an article. Thanks!--MorrisF 01:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Sounds interesting, maybe I could add an international perspective? MaxFletcher 01:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Have you made a determination yet?

Have you made a determination yet regarding the false slanders, and malicious smears directed against my person, character, and integrity? I would remind you, I, like yourself, edit under my real life identity. I'm sure you will agree with me about the unfairness of having your character impugned by anonymous internet trolls who hide behind ficticious user names.

In our private correspondence I stated I would respond at the Community Portal yesterday, however the page and its archives have suffered several vandal attacks just over the past 24-36 hours. I was blocked from responding to these baseless smears, then the blocking sysop reverted himself, unblocked me, left my IP blocked, and refused private contact which contradicts CP unblocking policy. I was severely inconvenienced for the whole day, and have been restricted from responding to these false allegations that I am a person lacking in integrity. And further, I've been insulted as a "dishonest fool", or some such.

I'm not telling you how to run your website, sir. I'm simply asking for simple fairness, as someone who has proven himself trustworthy with sysop powers. Are you going to allow the attacks on my person and character to stand, or will you direct the parties who have over stepped the bounds of decency to apologize? Thank you for your attention. Rob Smith 13:09, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Comments by other users and sysops

Out of interest, Rob, do you intend to apologize for the slanders you've spread about me and your fellow sysops? Jcw 14:36, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm not going to link to obscene vandal sites here, but I'm sure you can work out which comments I'm talking about. Or do you stand by what you've said about me, Conservative, Karajou and others on that site? Even here on CP you've made disgustingly opprobrious comments: "18:30, 2 August 2011 RobSmith (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked TracyS (Talk | contribs) ‎ (blocking sysop insanity is not cause for blocking)", which as you well know is tame compared to what you've publicly said elsewhere. I don't like to bring this up; I wouldn't have said anything if it wasn't for what looks to me like an appalling double standard in your message above, but I really can't stand to see such bare-faced dishonesty. Jcw 16:05, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

I inserted a break for this little conversation: it makes it easier for Andy Schlafly to address RobSmith's points without any distraction. RonLar 17:03, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Jcw: (a) show one diff here I said anything derogatory about yourself; (b) TracyS was blocked as "Sock of RobS", which of course, is insane. I stand by that comment. And further, I am referring to an fictitious user account (User:Karajou), who made a blatantly false aspersion on my person and character, User:RobSmith, who in real life is, Rob Smith. This fictitious user account, (User:Karajou) violates Conservapedia's own rules about user names. And this same unaccountable, fictitious user name (User:Karajou) has not only made false statements about a real life person ("Commandment 1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable"), he has blocked literally hundreds of user accounts for violating a rule ("Without transparency from users, there can be no accountability", Conservapedia:Guidelines) he himself has refused to abide by. Rob Smith 17:38, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

As I say, I'm not going to post links to a vandal wiki here. You surely recall the comments you've made, and if you can't work out which ones are insulting that speaks volumes. As does your claim that a disagreement over blocking justifies calling a fellow sysop 'insane'. I really think you shouldn't have cast the first stone here. Jcw 17:53, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

To quote User:Conservative : Motion dismissed. I suggest you appeal your case to a Harvard Law School alumni. I don't think he will respond and he probably will refuse to hear your case. Conservative 17:38, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

What makes you think that Andy Schlafly will respond to you, Rob? RonLar 17:55, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Jcw: So, you are unable to find one diff that I ever said anything offensive about yourself, thank you. Secondly, if you wish to hold blocking powers, I would encourage you to become familiar with Conservapedia site policy which states, "We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere" [5] Seems to me, you are bringing extraneous arguments. However, ignoring the rules, and making comments off-topic that run directly counter to Conservapedia's written rules, gets you off on the right foot.

For the third time, I'm not going to post links to a vandal site here. I haven't been here long enough to pronounce on the nuances of site policy, but I can't believe that the Conservapedia Commandments are meant to allow sysops brazenly and publicly to insult their colleagues from the safety of a cesspit of trolls. However, you've made it quite clear that you're not prepared to retract those comments, so there's little point in continuing this discussion. Jcw 18:34, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

What are you saying? Your will, whims and prejudices trump Conservapedia site policy? Rob Smith 18:37, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Ron: It has been my belief til now that Mr. Schlafly believes in accountability. When I entered the project more than 4 years, that was to be one large difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Accountability is the basis of Conservapedia's username policy. Only in the past month I personally asked Mr. Schlalfy to consider revising Conservpadia's user name policy, yet his desire is to stand by requiring users to register with their real name. Rob Smith 18:08, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Reply to the above

No one is required to edit here using his real full name. Indeed, the user name policy here discourages the use of a real full name in setting up an account and editing. Those who choose to edit here using their real full name should expect possible criticism in public. The Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech protects that.

That said, if there is a specific comment that warrants extra-special attention, then please post it below with the link, and I'll review it.

Please keep in mind that the 90/10 rule applies on this site to prevent unproductive discussions from interfering with the purpose of this site: to educate and learn in a productive way. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 18:48, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC)Thanks for that timely reminder, Andy. It was a mistake to be drawn into this unproductive argument. As ever, Scripture is the answer, in this case Galatians 6:7. Jcw 19:01, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

This happens a lot: I'm afraid that you erroneously only read the first paragraph of Rob Smith's edit. Here is the second one, complete with all the things which warrant extra-special attention

In our private correspondence I stated I would respond at the Community Portal yesterday, however the page and its archives have suffered several vandal attacks just over the past 24-36 hours. I was blocked from responding to these baseless smears, then the blocking sysop reverted himself, unblocked me, left my IP blocked, and refused private contact which contradicts CP unblocking policy. I was severely inconvenienced for the whole day, and have been restricted from responding to these false allegations that I am a person lacking in integrity. And further, I've been insulted as a "dishonest fool", or some such.

Well, you heard it from the boss, discussions on wiki sysop "accountability" are "unproductive". Rob Smith 19:07, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

No, "Ron", that does not include a link as requested. In response to Rob, I am being productive in seeking to end the bickering.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Well Andy, having a fictitious user account invent lies about me, block me for reverting vandalism, then revert himself, then unblock me but leaves the IP blocked, then ignore site policy by making himself inaccessible while he continues to post false information about me (another site rule violation), does not really point the finger at me as the source of bickering. I'm the victim here. Rob Smith 19:18, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Rob, we respect freedom of speech here, and that includes being criticized. If you don't want to be criticized, then don't speak out publicly. But once you (or anyone else) speaks out publicly, then please respect the First Amendment right of others to criticize, and then move on to more productive activities. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps it was your habit of going to another website and insulting Conservapedia Sysops? Hardly behavior worthy of Sysopship--SeanS 20:12, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't know, sounds like what Rob did also falls under the First Amendment right, and even if THAT was the reason, I'm sure Rob would have liked to have been told that it was. Regardless of what he may have done recently, for what he has contributed to this community in the past, he does deserve our respect. Eyal Lev

Thanks

Just noticed--thanks for moving Super Congress for me.--MorrisF 17:00, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

New Atheism and excess weight

Could you unprotect the page on "New Atheism leadership's problems with excess weight"? There's some valuable information on that page but some of it is awfully speculative and relies on circumstantial evidence. I'd like to clean it up a bit. Thanks! ---DennisR 19:00, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Hello Andy

Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post this, I'm not used to this site yet.
I was searching YouTube and blogs today and stumbled upon an atheist blog site. I found one article where an atheist admitted that we SHOULD teach the evolution controversy. Is this common and ignorable? If you're interested I could share the link.

Also, one of the atheists on the blogsite debated with Paul Taylor who cohosts Creation Today. Taylor did rather well and it's worth reading his arguements.

Request

Could I have SkipCaptcha rights? I know about the meritocracy thing and earning it, but it would make it soo much easier to revert some vandalism if i didn't have to type in a captcha every time a link is restored :/ --SeanS 14:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

EditCount Extension Request

Hello Mr. Schlafly. I see you haven't responded to my previous comment (you are a busy man of course!) Anyway...I'm requesting that you install EditCount for MediaWiki PHP software download. This will help me and others better keep track of their 90/10 standing. Anyway...back to articles for me. Godspeed! --WilliamMoran 00:17, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Email

Thanks for the extra rights. In case of any problems following blocks, I now feel I should be contactable by email, but I can't see where in my preferences to add my email address. (I thought I already had it in there, but again, I can't see it.)

Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks--CPalmer 10:44, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

No problem and no need for email, because someone will let you know on your talk page if your blocks are overzealous or too long. You can see prior blocks by others to get the idea. 1 year blocks in duration are becoming the standard for vandals; short blocks for non-vandals are appropriate. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 10:57, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

One further point on this while I think of it. The screen that a user sees when blocked does suggest that they email the user who blocked them. This should be removed if it isn't standard policy.--CPalmer 07:28, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Social insects

Hello there,

I just reverted your edit to the social insect example in Counterexamples to evolution, but I thought I better explain myself because it IS your encyclopedia! I expanded this example yesterday and moved it to the Irreducible Complexity section, where it seems to fit better. I hope that was OK?

That is an improvement in placement for that insight. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Farewell

2 Economics Questions

Anybody can of course answer but I thought Id ask on here since Andy teaches on the subject.

1: When the government just prints money to pay for things like what the Obama admin. has done in the past, theory states that the dollar will go down in value. I assume that this is akin to supply/demand for products but... products are tangible things that can or cannot be bought/shipped etc. whereas it seems money, while tangible, isn't a commodity that is bought and sold. Who takes a look at how much total money is circulating or what market factors play into currency being devalued when there is a lot of it. How do you go from printing a lot of money to the entire currency being devalued due to it.

2: When people talk about raising taxes to make up for the deficit I hear detractors saying that this would hurt investment/productivity because now there is suddenly less incentive to do so since the government is taking more of it away from you. I am not talking about business taxes but more personal income since I do think taxing business is directly bad but... if for example someone who made $15,100,000 net, now suddenly has to pay another $100,000 in taxes why does that translate into less investment? Perhaps I am interpreting some peoples words wrong but is it that people no longer have the same desire to make money now that they are getting less of it or is it that it is more risky to invest since they do not have as much money in case something doesn't pan out? I guess I am interpreting some talking heads as saying, "well people wont work as hard for that 15 mil next year if they have to pay higher taxes". My answer would be that if I am getting 15 mil a year and have to pay another 100k I'm still getting around 15 mil and would be more than happy to work the same amount next year for something very similar.

A couple of things

About the World History course, how is it decided one is basic or honors? I see the terminology used in the Study Guide, which I have added quite a few entries to.

About The O'Reilly Factor, it currently redirects to Bill O'Reilly. I was wanting to work on an article on the show perhaps in a week or so, and just wanted to make sure it was okay.

About a request I and another editor made to you a while back that is still above, have you processed these yet? If not, OK. I just didn't think you saw it due to the chaos lately.

Lastly, there a sizeable number of articles in the speedy delete category, including a few possibly libelious entries that need to be deleted.

Thank you and enjoy the rest of your evening.--JamesWilson 22:08, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for editing the World History Study Guide to 1648 -- the basic and honors categories are simply to prioritize terms so that the most trivial are not given equal priority with the most important. The honors terms would be expected to appear on a CLEP or AP exam, but not so much on high-school level tests.

It's been a busy week and unfortunately I have not been able to review your request for more privileges yet.

Thanks for explaining that to me, and for opening the article for editing. I will produce an article on the show soon. Review my request when you get the chance, whenever; I'm a fairly busy man myself and I understand. But thanks!!--JamesWilson 23:16, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Good news: the basics for the guide are complete! Can't wait for the actual course though! Good evening.--JamesWilson 19:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks!

Hi Andy, I hope you are having a good weekend. Thank you for reinstating me, I am enjoying once again contributing to Conservapedia. So far I have only made a few minor edits and have written an essay (my first ever): Essay:Everyday Heroes. Please feel free to let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions, I am always open to constructive criticism and would like to know any way my contributions can be improved. Thanks again, - Taj 16:24, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

It's a fabulous essay - I'll put a link on the front page so more people can be inspired by it!--Andy Schlafly 17:17, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Suggestion: Sunday editing...

Hi Andy,

As I'm currently recovering from medical problems and unable to drive, I found myself at home during what I suspect are church hours for most of the regular editors here. I couldn't help but notice a substantial number of vandals and parodists cropping up during those hours, and I suspect it's not a coincidence. It seems likely that they're anticipating a chance to do damage while the project's stalwart defenders are off at church.

Might it be a good idea to disable account creation for those few hours on Sunday morning, just to avoid such attacks? --Benp 11:07, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps, but we'll let Mr. Schlafly decide. I just would also like to point out, though I attend church on Sundays, some people may worship on Saturdays, and some good-faith editors may decide not to worship. But, I guess, disabling it for a few hours wouldn't hinder much.--JamesWilson 14:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

It could definitely be an inconvenience for some editors, and it's a shame that it even needs to be considered. I don't know if it's the right answer or not, which is why I'm suggesting it to wiser heads than mine for consideration. --Benp 14:28, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, it would. I personally don't think that is the answer.--JamesWilson 14:53, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your alert effort this morning, Ben, and your thoughtful suggestion. However, I don't think a systematic change is needed based on few isolated instances of vandalism. James, by the way, the temporary change Ben suggested would not affect accounts already created.--Andy Schlafly 14:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Since you deleted the existing images for the article due to the source link being dead, I thought of another image that could be used instead. This one of him in the Army I believe the copyright is okay, as I searched for free use images, but just wanted to make sure as there was a problem with a set I requested before in a similar manner. Thanks much!--JamesWilson 09:03, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm not convinced that picture is usable. Could it be a photo of a photo? It looks unusually blurry to me, and the attribution ("Elvis Presley Memorabilia at the Privately Elvis Museu") makes me question it further.--Andy Schlafly 23:41, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Notability

Excuse me again, but I'm not sure if Bob Bruce is notable enough for an encyclopedia. I ran his name through a search engine and didn't find anything from any prominent sources. And the author said he copied it himself from Wikipedia, but the article appears to be deleted. Your thoughts? Thanks!--JamesWilson 21:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

"Notability" can be a tool for censorship. There are many important conservatives who lack entries on Wikipedia, while many obscure and unimportant entries remain there. Conservapedia doesn't want to make a similar mistake.

The two examples cited above are informative. Ordinary people are worth learning about too.--Andy Schlafly 22:37, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Many thanks for clearing that up. I agree with that principle.--JamesWilson 22:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Deletion and merging

Hi Andy, this page: Hubble redshift is almost a duplicate of redshift. I want am going to copy the relevant parts out but how do I delete hubble redshift when I have done that? Do you have to do it? Thanks and I hope the rattle you got didn't frighten :-) We get them all the time down here! MaxFletcher 19:12, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Why is it that two senior sysops, Karajou and Conservative, unblocked this user after "user request" and because "he frequents the shockofgod chatroom"? Do you think is is worthy of investigation? I post here because their talk pages are locked. WLambert 23:06, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Another duplicate article

Hi Andy, this is another duplicate article which needs deleting. I have asked the user, JimJast, if he could please add relevant information to the article on redshift instead of creating more and more articles describing the exact same thing. Thanks in advance, MaxFletcher 17:09, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to evolution

I was blocked last week by DouglasA for some of the edits I made to the "Counterexamples to evolution" article. IDuan has just unblocked me on condition that I don't edit that article. Is this a reasonable condition to impose or is it fine with you if I join the discussion on improving the article? I see that JMairs has started putting a bit of work into it; I agree with some of what he wants to do and disagree with other bits, and with your permission I'd like to see what I can contribute. Thanks for your time. --SamCoulter 13:09, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Your comments on the talk page are certainly welcome at this time!--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

OK, thanks for that. I see you're having a discussion there with JMairs at the moment and like anyone else I'd like to nudge it in my own favoured direction as much as possible! --SamCoulter 16:53, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Scott debate

Good morning!

I was hoping to listen to this debate, but unfortunately, was unable to do so. Do you know if it's online anywhere, for those of us who missed the original airing? Regards,
--Benp 11:24, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

The "Listen here" link works on the Main Page. Here it is also for your convenience: [6].--Andy Schlafly 11:49, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Not sure how I overlooked that. Thanks! --Benp 12:57, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Dawkins and Watson

Is there any chance that I could be allowed to edit the Richard Dawkins article? I'm working on a new article detailing the "Elevatorgate" issue between Dawkins and Rebecca Watson of Skepchick/SGU, and I think it would be helpful to put a brief summary of it in the main Dawkins article. Thanks. --SamCoulter 18:25, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

I semi-unlocked the Richard Dawkins article. Only new editors are blocked. You should be able to edit it now. Conservative 04:47, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Hope

I read a hurricane might hit where you live. I pray you and yours will be safe. Aortuso 21:50, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Deletion and merging

On the advice of MaxFletcher I merged some of my stuff with other essays/articles and as a result some articles should be deleted. The articles ready for deletion are:

I'm happy to delete them, but don't want to make a mistake. Could you empty them first so I know that I'm deleting the right ones? Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 17:35, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Andy, Unfortunately deleting articles is punished by blocking the user, which I learned from karajou hard way. That's why I didn't delete some stuff. I couldn't being blocked and now I don't want to risk, since I don't have time for experimenting. The new, longer, and with corrected spelling list for deletion is here:

Gravitation demystified (moved to Essay:Demystified gravitation, not yet cleared, for being blocked)

Problems in cosmology (moved to Essay:Problems in cosmology, and cleared)

Einstein's universe (merged and cleared)

Einsteinian gravitation (merged and cleared)

Essay:Einsteinian gravitation (merged and cleared).

May I redirect pages to new names, and if yes then how? Wouldn't it be simpler to redirect all from the list to something that would be standard name for deleting?

I want to be sure I understand your request, and apologize for any prior misunderstandings. I just made Demystified gravitation a redirect to Essay:Demystified gravitation. Is that the best solution? If so, you can add redirects just I did, or I can continue to make similar edits for the remainder of your list.--Andy Schlafly 17:41, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

If a page needs deleting, you can put {{speedy}} on it to mark it for speedy deletion. That automatically puts the page in Category:Speedy_deletion_candidates as well, so that the pages can be easily found.--CPalmer 10:08, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Suggestion - vandalism

Why not screen usernames by pre-approving signups? Many of the trolls have non-human usernames. -danq 22:52, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

A paper that the evolutionists are crowing about

I'll just leave this here where you can see it. I have nothing to say about the paper because I don't really understand the methods or conclusion or what on earth they are talking about. --DrDean 01:39, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

A question about the history class

Hi Andy, I am signed up for your class and wondering what I need to do? It starts tomorrow/day after so do I need to skype through to the class or get on messenger? Or is it based all online for me to complete in my own time? Thanks so much, MaxFletcher 16:48, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

You can participate online through the posted lectures (the first is available already) and online homework and online grading and online exams. The in-person class is not yet available through skype or otherwise yet.

World History Signups

Hi Mr Schlafly, I was wondering about the signups for World History. Is it free? What kind of assignments will we have? I'm pretty interested in it and would like more information. --RSnelik 23:05, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, a quick question on the assignment. Do the terms I already defined count toward the homework, or do I need to do more, which I don't mind at all. This also applies, I suppose, to the other pupils who have done so. Thanks much!--JamesWilson 10:30, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, homework credit for the work already done is appropriate! If you could estimate how many terms you completed then that would help.--Andy Schlafly 11:00, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

I would estimate I did about thirty on the Basic section. Of course, I could mention some of the specific ones on my assignment for credit. Many thanks for offering this class to the public!--JamesWilson 17:15, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

More talk talk talk

I found this and I would write it into some articles, but I've got to get to an appointment and my day is pretty full, so I figured I'd just leave this here for you too. Hopefully it's not too much talk. (If these captcha images get any harder I'm going to have to buy a computer program to do them for me!) --DrDean 14:24, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

No more captcha images for your account - it now has "SkipCaptcha"!--Andy Schlafly 17:05, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Andy, would you be so kind to remove mine as well please? :-) DerekE 19:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

New Category

I hope you don't mind, but I created a category for James Bond movies and tagged all the appropriate articles. Thanks!--JamesWilson 19:46, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Sounds like a great idea to create such a category! Now the movies will be easier to find.--Andy Schlafly 12:03, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Indeed. I plan to add GoldenEye and the Casino Royales soon, so that the series would be complete. Actually, I think it still lacks the Brosnan and Craig films, but I will fix that too! Much thanks for the good will!--JamesWilson 19:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks

I wanted to say thank you for the additional privileges. --SharonW 13:12, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

RE: User JimJast

Basically just wanted to draw user JimJast to the attention of the administrators. Reading his physics essays, I thought he was just a crackpot trying to spread his theories. But I think he might actually be just here to deliberately insert nonsense. Firstly, I noticed that he created the page, "Cargo cult science," a pejorative term -w hich describes exactly what he's engaged in! Not only that, but I googled the title of his essay "Gravitation Demystified" and his username and it linked to some atheist website which talks about Conservapedia on its front page. AlycaZ 17:46, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Thought about Evolution theory

It may be something you have already thought about but I had an interesting conversation today about the way many people accept evolution blindly wihtout having actually examined the so called "evidence" first hand. They are often quick to accuse those who follow the authority of Christian teachings as having blind faith, and how "the church" once instructed people to think that the sun went round the earth. They do not realise the irony that they too are blindly following a belief in something that someone in so called authority has told them is a "fact". DavidMilton 22:05, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

(edit conflict)I'm going to recommend that you start a new domain and have it hosted separately for this project unless you want your servers clogged to the point where they no longer function, then upload a public domain dictionary. I don't know where you can find a public domain dictionary, but if you try to write a dictionary piecemeal about 95% of your work is going to be trying to figure out what you haven't done yet. Also, I think it would be helpful to have both conservative and liberal definitions of words, so people know what conservatives mean when they say "critical thinking" (logical and penetrating) and what liberals mean when they say the same thing (believes in global warming, evolution, and environmentalism). -DrDean 00:00, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to report that so far the Conservative Dictionary Project has 13 pages and 80 definitions! --BradleyS 18:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to it from the main page, maybe in the Conservapedia projects section? It might generate more interest and help it move more quickly.--GrahamB 18:25, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Disambiguation pages

I was trying to create one for Casino Royale as there are several things it could refer to, but I think I did it wrong. I would appreciate it if you could look at it. Thanks much!--JamesWilson 21:31, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

The format looks good to me.--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

WWFY

It seems he was making good faith edits. All he ever wanted to do was add a reference tag. --WilliamMoran 17:37, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

WilliamMoran

Andy, please could you check out the user WilliamMoran. He looks as if he might be quite an obvious parodist. See thisKhalidM 17:48, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Acne vaporised

Mr. Sclafly, I am not sure if this is the right forum for raising this, but acne vaporised redirects to the conservapedia page (the entry on the topic of conservapedia). I believe the page is locked so I can't fix it, so I am drawing it to your attention.--GrahamB 16:51, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Atheism Page locked

Mr Schlafly, I have some nice stats about atheism in the world I wanted to add to the Atheism page but I found out that this page was locked... Is there a way for me to contribute on that subject ? --ARamis 00:47, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

ARamis, your suggestions are welcome and how about posting them to Talk:Atheism first? Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 12:03, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

problems accessing the site

Hi Mr. Schlafly. If you have the time, could you please send me an email to the address on my user page? I want to ask you about a potential technical problem that so far, is preventing me from editing as regularly as I could. I don't want to discuss it (or the details of my IP address) in public, for the sake of privacy, but it would be a great help. Thank you! KevinDavisTalk 17:01, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

You can simply email us at conservapedia@zoho.com, without including any IP addresses.--Andy Schlafly 17:25, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you! I couldn't find any email address on the main page, so I apologize for missing it. I emailed you about the problem, which unfortunately, is still occurring. I'd greatly appreciate any help, whenever you have a chance. Thank you again! Kevin DavisTalk 19:45, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Has there been any progress on correcting the errors in the site? I haven't received any response from the email address listed above, so I wanted to make sure that the emails were received properly. Thank you! Kevin DavisTalk 15:08, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly

I was User:WalterS and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by User:Karajou for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to User:Aschlafly and User:Conservative. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --JefferyA 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Vandal

Thank you

Professor Schlafly, I want to sincerely thank you for granting me extra rights. I hope I will live up to your standards. --CraigF 11:49, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Template protection

Could the template for the dictionary project be protected? I post on the talk page as well, but I wanted to make sure it was protected as soon as possible, because from what I've read, templates can be awfully problematic when left open. Thank you! Kevin DavisTalk 19:46, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

I made a template to serve as an index, too, so that probably needs to be protected as well. Thank you! Kevin DavisTalk 20:01, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

The entries have been protected as requested!--Andy Schlafly 21:04, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you very much! Could the spelling template be briefly unprotected so I can quickly update the link? Assuming my connections don't time out, it should take me less than a minute. Thank you again! Kevin DavisTalk 21:05, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

That entry has been unprotected as requested.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you very much! I couldn't update the link because my connection timed out, and when I could access the site again, I was temporarily blocked from editing, as I was this morning. However, the latter problem corrected itself, so I updated the link. The template can be protected again; is there a better place for me to place such requests, so I'm not bothering you on your talk page? Thank you again! Kevin DavisTalk 09:50, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

This talk page is fine for your comments. The page is protected again.--Andy Schlafly 10:09, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Edit

I asked at Karajou's page because he seemed more recently active and I've been having problems loading the pages - I would like to be granted the edit ability so I can clean up some things I missed at the Samuel Johnson page. I would also like to be able to put images for that page. Ottava (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Ottava, you don't need the edit ability to edit Samuel Jackson unless you plan on editing it late at night. Also, image uploading is restricted to a certain user group, and you can request images here. Conservapedia grants privileges based on a merit system. Mr Schlafly may process your request, but I would personally wait until you have some very good edits in, based on my and SharonW's requests. Thanks.--JamesWilson 13:21, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I can be emailed through Wikipedia with the "email user" feature at the name User:Ottava Rima, fyi. Ottava (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you!

Mr. Schlafly; As I understand it, you are the creator of this website. I just wanted to take a moment out of my day to thank you for the incredible resource you've built. Both my daughters are in their teens, and one has started to rebel against God. I've sent her a few links and believe she will reaffirm her faith. Once again, thank you! LindaP 19:45, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

welcoming users

I've noticed that a few new users have pasted the {{Welcome}} template into the talk and/or user pages of other new users; is this something I should do as well? Thank you! Kevin DavisTalk 12:39, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

You could welcome new users with that template!--Andy Schlafly 17:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

It is probably better to use {{subst:Welcome}} since that puts in the text and doesn't keep the template active. Ottava (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Homework part 2

Hi Andy, sorry I haven't got around to completing my homework for lecture two yet - I'll get on to it asap! MaxFletcher 16:51, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Same here. I should have mine up by tomorrow!--JamesWilson 18:57, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Johann Hari

Is anyone planning on writing an article about that journalist? [7], [8], [9], and others. He attacked many people by using Wikipedia to defame them. Many of his targets were Conservatives or those he thought were not liberal enough. I don't have time to write up anything but it is an amusing story. :) Ottava (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Upload request

Hi Andy, could you (or anyone else watching) upload this image (or one like it). I have made an All Blacks template and I'd like a picture to put in it. Many thanks, MaxFletcher 22:19, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

What does that relate to? It would be helpful if you explained this further.--Andy Schlafly 00:33, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry for not being clearer! At the moment the rugby world cup is taking place and I am an All Blacks fan. I made a template (as can be seen here) but wanted to have the All Blacks logo in it. If that not OK I can keep it as it is though. Thanks, MaxFletcher 16:54, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

About the deleted 'Counter-critism' section in the Ontological Argument article

What might it mean to say that no kind of thing exists necessarily? It seems to me that this question is the tacit root of the Ontological Argument. It was the reason I had added the things that comprised the now-deleted Counter-criticism section. I think most people assume that there is something which is unchanging and which underlies all the physical world. For atheists, this would be a Unified Field Theory, String Theory, or etc. PatternOfPersona 12:58, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

2012 Election page

I responed on the article's talk page. I am eager to hear your response. AaronL 17:27, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

I again responded to your latest response on this article's talk page. I am eager to hear your response. AaronL 13:16, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nominate for deletion: Atheism and obesity

I'd like to nominate this article for deletion. The Gallup study on which it is based mentions neither atheism nor obesity and there is no evidence at all to support the article's claim that obesity is more of a problem among atheists than it is among anybody else. Given that the article can't be backed up by evidence, therefore, I think the harm it does to the credibility of Conservapedia (it's not exactly hard to label it as an unfounded ad hominem attack) far outweighs any good it does, and it should either be moved to an essay or simply removed. --SamCoulter 20:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps a more diplomatic solution would be a move to essay space?--CamilleT 21:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

That would be fine; it fits better as an essay than as an encyclopaedia article. Opinion pieces are what essays are for, but articles should be about facts. --SamCoulter 22:13, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Is the article based on the Gallup study? Please demonstrate. A reminder: The article has over 20 pages of information. Conservative 05:36, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Information is cheap. Organizing it coherently and correctly is the real trial--CamilleT 13:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

It is 20 pages of information, but it's all only relevant to itself if it goes back and has some connection which is provided by the gallup study alone. --DrDean 18:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nominate for unlocking: Evolution and Atheism

I think these two articles should be unlocked, at least for established users (I see the sense in keeping them locked for new users, because they're obvious targets for vandalism.) These are two of the most important articles in Conservapedia and I'm sure a lot of us have something to contribute, so it doesn't seem right that they both appear to be more or less the exclusive property of one user. --SamCoulter 18:34, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

From what I gather you are supposed to say what you want to add or remove from the article before you can get it temporarily unlocked. Looking at the articles they could use a bit of a rewrite, and they could probably stand to be cut into multiple pages because of their length, which doesn't seem possible under the current format. --DrDean 18:53, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Alternatively we could just unlock them and use the traditional method of finding a concensus among editors for what they should look like. As it is they're controlled by one person whose ideas are not necessarily going to influence atheists and evolutionists in the direction we SHOULD be influencing them. --SamCoulter 18:57, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Amazingly enough, yes! That's exactly what I mean. Conservapedia is supposed to be a COMMUNITY, but right now I don't feel much like part of a community; I feel like myself and other ordinary editors are at best tolerated and at worst despised. --SamCoulter 19:29, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

It could be, but then again maybe it's my opinions? If you think it IS my tone please feel free to offer suggestions on how I could fit in better.

In any case, I still think that the Best of the public approach is the one we should be using, rather than having self-appointed gatekeepers determining the tone and content of important articles on behalf of the entire Conservapedia community. Especially when those gatekeepers then insist on using those very articles as a source to back up their arguments on talk pages. "I'm right because the Koala Bear article agrees with me" isn't all that convincing when it comes from the only person who's allowed to edit the Koala Bear article. --SamCoulter 19:48, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

The problem solved itself

Last night I sent an email at the conservapedia@zoho address concerning my inability to access the site. It would appear that this is no longer a problem, and I should have waited a day instead of bothering you (unless you or the webmaster solved the issue and hasn't yet notified me- if so, thanks!). Please disregard the email I sent, as it is no longer relevant.

Also, I am aware of editing being locked down at night, but is there also a brief lockdown period at around noon (Mountain time)? On multiple occasions I have found myself unable to edit at this particular time. Thank you for any clarity you may provide--CamilleT 22:22, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Suggestion for Greatest Conservative Songs

Man in Black by Johnny Cash. It promotes helping the less fortunate and faith in Christ.--JamesWilson 16:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Could I get a hand here

[SeanS] Thinks that because the word promote has more than one meaning that the article should reflect the irrelevant meanings that even small children could see it wasn't talking about. --DrDean 19:57, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Was asking a question

Hello Mr. Schlafly,

I have been away from this website for a few months now. A stroke set me back for a while but I think I am okay now.

Before my problem I left you a question on here about doing some edits. Your deleted my question right away without answering it. Can you please explain what I have done wrong? FredM 10:30, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Hi JonG. Not sure who you are, but I'm confused. I actually asked this specific question, but the change wasn't just unanswered, but marked as a "revert". Can this be explained? I don't want to cause trouble. God bless and good night. FredM 21:08, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Well in any case, I have started working on the pages in question. I wish editors understood to stop adding everything to the main page. Am I the only one following the page convention started by earlier editors? FredM 15:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Email request

Mr Schlafly,

Would it be possible for you to let me have your email address, or for you to email me (my address is on my user page)? There is an issue that's causing me some considerable concern right now but I don't feel comfortable discussing it publicly. Thanks. --SamCoulter 16:53, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

To be more specific, one of the admins on CP is acting in a way that is making me extremely concerned. Thanks. --SamCoulter 20:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

I really believe that Conservative is really not heping Conservapedia.
It is up to you to decide what to do but I would like to let you know that I am not the only person to think this way.
--ARamis 17:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Also see recent discussions that Conservative has had with SharonW, SamCoulter and MaxFletcher, and the abusive and infantile tone he took with them. This is NOT the way to encourage people to contribute to this project. --JMairs 17:20, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Phillipemuller (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year (autoblock disabled) (user name policy: first name and last initial are preferred as account names

Then what about Conservative? What about Karajou? --StevenLi 23:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Meritorious edits, of which your examples have tens of thousands, obviate the need for a first name and last initial.--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Apparently, this individual JMairs intends and demands to continue trolling and creating socks in the process, without ceasing his attacks on user Conservative. Karajou 23:40, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Nevermind the fact that the users with pseudonyms like Karajou and Conservative wouldn't be able to edit if they were blocked within 24 hours of their account creation.... PhillipF 11:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

It doesn't take 24 hours to post some constructive edits.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I was wondering, however: I agree that users should have a first name and last name initial as user name, so I agree with the block of Phillipemuller. But why was his second attempt at creating an account with the username of PhillipeM blocked as well? --Leo-from-France 11:46, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

But back to the subject: It would seem to me that you'll very quickly run out of "acceptable" usernames should you really enforce the "first name and last initial" how would William Barnard make an account after William Broadbent made his? AsherL 10:08, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm sure human ingenuity can find some way round that obstacle.--CPalmer 10:10, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Earthquakes

There is some debate just now about the inclusion of the claim that severe earthquakes are doubling every 40 years. The reference you cited definitely does claim this and gives the USGS as a source for its data, but the actual USGS earthquake database contradicts it and shows no increase. To me it looks like the creators of your reference worked off a list of historically significant earthquakes rather than the database of ALL earthquakes. DavidZa and I have both checked the actual figures and found a major discrepancy: for example the reference states that between 1986 and 1996 there were 15 major earthquakes but the actual number was 84. --FindlayT 13:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps an even bigger increase in major earthquakes in recent years, then?--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

From what FindlayT and DavidZa were saying there hasn't been any increase at all. I went to the link they provided and searched the database (which seems to be legitimate, it's an NOAA site and it lists every quake.) Between 1901 and 1910 there were 121 earthquakes of Mag 7.0 or higher, but between 2001 and 2010 there were only 107. It does fluctuate a lot - in the 1970s there were 97, in the 1980s only 62, in the 1990s 86. If someone only looked at the last three decades they would see a sharp increase, but go back a century and if anything the trend is very slightly down. --SamCoulter 22:54, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

The more recent data would be far more reliable than the older data, don't you think?--Andy Schlafly 23:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

For minor quakes, definitely, which is why the number of minor quakes detected increased each year until a proper global seismometer network was in place. For severe quakes, though, the capability to detect them has been in place for a while. In any case, if our ability to detect severe quakes was improving while the number detected stayed relatively constant that would imply a decrease rather than an increase, wouldn't it? --SamCoulter 23:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Greatest Conservative Books

Hi Mr. Schlafly. I see that Conservapedia has created many projects to promote conservatism among the unchecked liberal infestation of society with works such as Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Songs (in addition to works such as the Conservative Bible Project and the Conservative Dictionary Project to root out liberalization in our everyday lives). I would like to propose starting a Greatest Conservative Books project. Books today, from children's fiction to college textbooks, are overrun with liberal bias and distortion and I think promoting true conservative books will be an excellent way to overcome much of the liberalization and allow people to read literature that exhibits true conservative values. Obviously liberalism has severely degraded both the quality and reliability of books in today's society, but if Conservapedia can pick out and promote the conservative gems that are being left behind then I think we can do a lot for both literature and conservatism. RSnelik 21:46, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

If you're interested in children's fiction could I suggest the "Swallows and Amazons" series by Arthur Ransome? They're a bit old (written in the 30s and 40s) and the author was either a notorious communist sympathiser or an MI6 agent sent to penetrate the Bolshevik movement (opinions vary widely,) but they encourage children to take part in outdoor activities and become disciplined and self-reliant, the only single parent is a war widow and there's no hint of sex or alcohol (except loads of ginger beer.) --SamCoulter 23:14, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

The problem with "Greatest Conservative Novels" is that it leaves out many other kinds of books (namely, the Bible). We should be documenting the greatest conservative children's stories, science textbooks, and other types of books so people of all kinds will have something to read or research that doesn't have liberal bias and distortion in it. Plus there's no explanation next to each entry to show why it's conservative (like greatest conservative songs, TV shows has). RSnelik 23:51, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps we should start a "Worst Liberal Books" article as well? Unfortunately, there are probably many examples (e.g, Marx's Das Kapital, Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Obama's The Audacity of Hop, etc.). However, it might serve as a good guide as to which books conservatives should stay away from. --BradleyS 10:17, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

The problem is that there are so many intolerable liberal books out there that it would probably be impossible to document them all. If you could make an article about the worst offenders (such as The Audacity of Hope, On the Origin of Species, etc) then I would most definitely support you. As you say, it could be a good guide for showing visitors which books to stay clear of. RSnelik 18:01, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Editing

Mr. Schlafly, I have had a problem editing. I was trying to edit earlier this morning, and it was restricted. I know editing is restricted at nighttime, but it was 7:45 A.M. (United States Eastern Standard Time) when I tried accessing the site. Many thanks if you could look into this.--James Wilson 12:27, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I've been having the same issue. What is the schedule for database locking? Is one not allowed to edit during lunch? There are instances where I could edit, then for about an hour I couldn't, then I found I could again. I'm aware of night edit, but am confused as to the seemingly erratic frequency of my not being able to edit.--CamilleT 12:59, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I just had the same problem trying to edit an article a bit ago.--James Wilson 21:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

It keeps getting randomly turned on and off.--SeanS 21:35, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

It has been shut off, they shut it off every night (which makes it difficult for those of us in the far west) they probably have their reasons and I'm sure that they know that it's happening. --DrDean 22:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm looking into this. It should work better now.--Andy Schlafly 22:13, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Can you please also look into what's been said below, in the Comment section? Thanks. --SamCoulter 22:16, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

@Dean, I dont think that 8 pm/9 pm eastern time is "nighttime" when I can normally edit past midnight my time.--SeanS 22:17, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Greek Empire

Aschlafly, please take a look at Talk:World History Homework Two‎! The concept of a Greek Empire (776 B.C. to 323 B.C.) is somewhat ludicrous - you shouldn't enclose this in your lectures and try to rectify the misconception of your pupils if they got the idea from somewhere else.

The dates are alright but empire? Using this word to describe the Greek civilization shows a serious lack of knowledge and understanding. And if you want to justify this outrageous formulation, please don't come up with another meaningless hit count of a google search, but with some scholarly sources! Those will be very hard to find... AugustO 17:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Although I don't endorse what August has said, I do also disagree with calling it an empire. Sure it was, more or less, culturally united, but not anything that could be called a "greek empire"--SeanS 17:46, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Comment

Not only is this NOT supported by facts it is also NOT family friendly and NOT safe to be viewed in the workplace or any other educational facility. It is borderline pornographic in language. MaxFletcher 17:38, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy, may I first thank you for giving me additional rights. I know you granted me them some time ago but I have been away on business since then. I wish to express my gratitude to you. Second, I have used those rights to give one of your long-standing users, Conservative, a short block period to ask him to reflect on his actions and perhaps to desist from writing some offensive material in this encyclopedia which even a child should be able to read. I don't feel it's my place to give Conservative a longer block but I must say that some of the material he writes do not seem to bring credit on Conservapedia. Just my thoughts, anyway. kind regards. KhalidM 17:54, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I see that Conservative has unblocked himself instead of taking the opportunity to reflect on his actions. I leave the matter in your capable hands. KhalidM 17:55, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Why did Princeton University give the atheist Peter Singer a bioethics chair? He advocates immoral behavior. Of course, atheist Joseph Stalin's experiments were horrid as well. Of course, liberals such as Max take offense when the immorality of liberals is brought up. Conservative 18:20, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I am a Christian - I take offense at your behaviour as a professed Christian. I am not a liberal. Since when does being revolted by you, Conservative make one a liberal. You disgust me. MaxFletcher 18:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy, I personally feel I would like to block Conservative again for his abuse of other editors added to the crudity of his recent material, but I am only a very junior member of this project. Please would you take some action as leader of CP to make Conservative behave in a decent manner. KhalidM 18:36, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I second that. I've raised concerns about his behaviour before but if anything he's getting worse. I am also a junior member and I don't find it encouraging that a supposedly senior sysop is acting in this way. As well as constantly producing offensive articles that don't belong in an encyclopaedia he tends to harrass people by questioning their faith, accusing them of being liberals or demanding that they prove their value by creating more of the sort of articles HE wants rather than ones that might actually help people. --SamCoulter 18:39, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Max, repeatedly you take offense when I write material critical of atheism/the atheist community. Furthermore, you don't know your Bible well as say unbiblical things. I still think you are an atheist or at the very least a liberal. Conservative 18:41, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

SamCoulter, not only do you bridle at accurate criticisms of atheism/evolution, but if memory serves you have had the same IP as vandals or people who have been banned. I think your days are numbered at Conservapedia. :) Conservative 18:41, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Whereas you only bridle at accurate criticisms of yourself? My edit history is self-explanatory; I've put in a lot of work improving articles to give real, scientific arguments against evolution. Nobody has any reason to question my faith or my acceptance of creationism. Your claims about my IP address? You're bluffing: if that was the case I'd have been barred for sockpuppetting long ago and we all know that. No matter: the issue has now been put before Andy Schlafly and it's in his hands. It looks like the choice has come down to either you go or all the actual editors do. If you aren't brought under control then it doesn't matter if my days are numbered or not, because Conservapedia's own days will be numbered. I have no wish to be part of a project dominated by an individual as unpleasant, malicious and offensive as you. --SamCoulter 19:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)--SamCoulter

I can't do this anymore, I am sorry. Call me a liberal, call me a atheist, call me whatever libel you want, but in the end Ken all you are is a Sad, pathetic man in a dark room, because that's the only place a troll can truly feel safe. A true christian would never tolerate or do what you do, and the people above are right to stand against you. I know this will be reverted and I know i will be banned, and that saddens me as deep down andy and the rest of you have some redeeming traits, but you have all let your name's and the idea of a conservative wiki be destroyed. And when you do call me a Evil communist atheist evolutionist, just look at my comments on the "Vandal" wiki as mikalos209: How even there I say I am a Literalist christian. and here and there i have argued my faith publicly, unprofessional and small-scale my debate is at least i HAVE debated somebody, not ran away while declaring those who do challenge me to be beneath my level. Call me whatever you want, but I refuse to be any part of this project anymore, and any parodist out there, you should stop too. Let them see how truly alone they are now because of things like what Ken has posted. --SeanS 21:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I have never taken offense at you writing until now - I have merely pointed out your errors in logic. I have never said anything unbiblical. Your current efforts a far more unbiblical than anything I could muster. By your fruits shall you be know. MaxFletcher 22:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Now it's "Professor values and bestiality." I pity his pets. --SamCoulter 22:50, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

I have created a debate topic on whether or not CP should develop and enforce a policy on what is encyclopaedic content and on what is family-friendly content. I think all of you above (with the obvious single exception: you know who you are) have something valuable to contribute to it. --SamCoulter 22:12, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Edit break

Normally I don't throw in with this sort of conversation, because I don't want to sound like a "concern troll", but I was quite displeased to see that your sysop's first response to seeing that so many people were sickened and disgusted by his new content was to copy and past the exact same content into half a dozen extra articles. The race to the bottom is a fast one with a very unpleasant prize for the winner. --DrDean 07:04, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

To my esteemed colleague Dr. Dean: I found 6 pages of credible sources tying atheism/evolutionism to this aberrational and depraved behavior. Some of the best sources were from the evolutionist/atheists themselves. Ouch! By the way, I hope you found the PubMed citation and the material directly afterwords informative doctor. Conservative 07:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

"Conservative", you can find anything on the Internet. Here is a scholarly article tying Christianity to bestiality, for instance. It doesn't make it true. Your articles are revolting and you should be ashamed of them. You certainly don't follow any standard of Christian belief with which I'm familiar. It's far more likely that you are a parodist trying to damage this site. RobertE 07:55, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Really? You can find anything on the internet? Please provide me proof and evidence that atheism is true on the internet. Conservative 08:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Inasmuch as your question makes sense, here is an answer - it took me about 10s to find. Please stop playing childish games and delete your revolting articles. This is a family site. RobertE 08:11, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

My only comment on Conservatives new articles is this: the truth hurts, don't it? AngusT 08:25, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

The truth of his articles is highly disputed, to say the least. However what's at issue here is the offensive way he writes them, his insistence on maintaining complete control in defiance of Andy Schlafly's best of the public approach, his threatening and abusive behaviour to other editors and the fact that his articles consist only of irrelevant photos, quotes from other people and huge chunks cut and pasted from his own articles. Do a quick Google search if you want to know how much damage he's doing to Conservapedia's reputation. "DeMyers Laws" would be a good start. --SamCoulter 15:33, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, my concern was never that you lacked sources, frankly it doesn't matter either way, it was that you used your power to do something that you knew the community would be offended by. I am offended by the material that you put up, I think that it should be proceeded by a long discussion about how appropriate it is. I cannot imagine why Mr. Schalfly hasn't commented on this discussion, this is the time when a leader needs to step up. The entire purpose of a wiki is to crowdsource, I know that I have serious misgivings about spending time and effort to build a wiki that has 6 articles on bestiality, much less one that treats common editors with such disrespect. I'm starting to get a very clear picture of why this wiki has remained so very small for so many years. --DrDean 12:37, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

SamCoulter, any fool can dispute. The question is: Is the disputation valid? Please show me one factual error in the articles.

Dr. Dean, I just spoke to a Conservapedia admin and he/she approved of the material and thought it was good that this evil was brought to the light. I can understand that this is information is embarrassing to the atheist/evolutionist communities, but the critics have yet to show why this evil should not be exposed nor have they pointed out a single factual error in the material. Conservative 18:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Which admin? If they actually exist they can explain, themselves, why this material is encyclopaedic and should be included. --SamCoulter 19:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Does the article cite reputable Christian apologetic sources plus cite material relevant to prominent figures within the atheist/evolutionist community? We both know the answer to these questions is yes. Conservative 19:16, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

That is completely irrelevant, because your articles are riddled with logical fallacies, including but not limited to ad hominem, non sequitur, fallacy of accident and the strawman fallacy. Just because some atheists support bestiality does not mean that support for bestiality is part of atheist philosophy - it isn't - or that this is a majority position among atheists - again, it isn't. Your article is nothing but a smear piece. It is not encyclopaedic. Your insistence on protecting everything you touch is also not helpful; this is a wiki and the whole point is that every user can edit it. Anyway, you are avoiding my question, which is: which admin approved this material and why aren't they telling us this themself? --SamCoulter 19:22, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Sam, why are you pursuing this line of inquiry on Aschlafly's user page? It should be obvious to you--given his total lack of a response, that he's really not interested in you and your complaints, or the complaints of anyone else, when it comes to this matter. You're wasting your time, and most probably acting as a nuisance to Aschlafly by continually editing his talk page/causing him to get notified about this. Suggestion; move on. Through his silence, Aschlafly has ruled on the matter. BrentH 19:26, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Can I merely point out that it wasn't me who started the discussion - it was two editors with blocking rights, both of whom blocked User:Conservative because of his behaviour - and that if Aschlafly isn't interested in the opinions of his editors he isn't going to have very many left? --SamCoulter 19:29, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Silence isn't a ruling, by the way: it's just silence. If Aschlafly isn't interested in the concerns of a number of editors he should just tell us that he isn't interested. He is the leader of this project and those of us with concerns about the direction its going in would like to know his wishes on the subject so we can proceed accordingly. --SamCoulter 19:38, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

I would feel more comfortable if this admin were to make his or her support for this set of articles public.There are many things that are both Vulgar and evil, "exposing the evil" is not justification enough for say a compendium of male homosexual sex acts, so why do half a dozen nearly identical articles on bestiality make the cut? --DrDean 20:41, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Seconded. Could this admin please explain to us how User:Conservative's articles on bestiality are making Conservapedia a more valuable resource for conservatives, especially home-schooled or Christian schoolchildren who need an unbiased and trustworthy encyclopaedia to help with their education?

If the admin fails to give such an explanation then I'm sure I won't be the only one to draw certain conclusions about their identity, or rather existence. --SamCoulter 20:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

conservative should be commended for the extreme detail he goes into in writing about bestiality for 18 hours straight -EdgarP 02:36, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

As EdgarP said, User:Conservative should be commended on all the effort and detail he puts into this praiseworthy project. He doesn't deserve such harsh criticism with such a prolific work ethic. No one works harder for this site than him. RSnelik 16:47, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Why are you so silent on this matter?

Is it because Conservative is untouchable or because you agree with his contributions ?--ARamis 20:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT